Why Xians Need Rules

Maybe I just need to stop listening to and reading anything Xians write about their beliefs. I feel compelled to write comments arguing against their assertions, but the Xians just ignore them and the free-thinkers have heard it all before. A case in point; In the middle of some forum, one of god's select had to throw in the ol' chestnut about atheists not having morality because they don't have a religion to tell them the rules. As always, a freshman college course, in this case Social Anthropology, is sufficient to rebut that assertion, but I also thought about the light this assertion sheds on the Xian.

The insistence that morality can't exist without religious guidance, in spite of the fact that they keep addressing this to atheists who clearly understand and practice morality as adeptly as their Xian counterparts, suggests that maybe the Xians have no capacity to act morally without threats of eternal damnation. If these Xians feel that they, themselves, would be unable to act morally without thinking a vengeful god is watching over them, maybe they cling to the structure of religion to help them control their sociopathy.

Let's see, what are the symptoms of a sociopath, or what they now prefer to call a person with antisocial personality disorder? They include persistent lying (where have I seen that lately? Oh yeah, Ken Ham's Museum-o-lies.), an extreme sense of entitlement (like when someone feels that his personal beliefs should be part of public school curricula and be codified into local, state and federal law), lack of remorse or empathy (like the way he doesn't understand or care when people become upset, or become the victims of prejudice, as a result of his personal beliefs becoming part of the curriculum or the law), a tendency to violate the rights and boundaries of others (like when he fights to keep other religions out of his neighborhood, also see above), aggressive behavior (like threatening to murder someone for breaking a cracker), and, of course, a general difficulty distinguishing between right and wrong.

Well, maybe there are some slight similarities between sociopaths and evangelical Xians, but they're mighty subtle. So if these Xian writers assert that morality requires adherence to religion, because they themselves are unable to be moral without adherence to religion, we may never know for sure. Oh wait! What's the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath? I may have looked up the wrong one.

Ohio Churches Think They’re the Fun Police

Governor Strickland of Ohio has decided to allow slot machines at horse racing tracks, because the state is out of money and he needs to find a new source. I’m not a big supporter of the idea, since I’ll never use the slot machines and the people who will use them the most are gambling addicts. At the same time I don’t think it’s the job of the government to illegalize everything that could be addictive, so, friends and relatives of gambling addicts, show some spine and take control of the car keys and charge cards. The Ohio church people, however, think that it is the responsibility of the government to illegalize anything that they think is immoral.

OK, church people, take a walk around the neighborhood and look at the other houses of worship. Do they believe all the same things that you believe in your church? No, that’s why they’re in different buildings. So what makes you think that whatever is believed in your building should be imposed on everyone else in Ohio?

Nonetheless, the newspapers all have articles about how church people have vowed to fight the Governor’s decision with law suits and protests. The governor, himself is an ordained Methodist minister (it hurts my brain to write that) so it doesn’t take much extrapolation to conclude that not all religious types are in agreement, but that seems to be irrelevant to the outraged guardians of goodness.

Here’s the thing, church people, there’s a place for you to dictate your version of morality; your church. The job of a religious group is to impose their beliefs and moral codes on the people who have agreed to be part of that group, then if one from your group breaks the no slot machine rule, they can be shunned or stoned or forced to clean up after the potluck or whatever. What you do not have the right to do is go out into the greater community and say “All you people who have no prohibition against video slot machines in your sacred texts, must, nonetheless, be deprived of video slot machines so that we are not tempted to break the no video slot machine commandment of our religion.” So, to use the popular sheep herding analogy: go tend your own flock and keep your nose out of other flocking people’s business.

Is It Sometimes OK for Christians to Lie?

I posted this in the Rational Responders Forum, but if anyone blunders onto this blog, please leave a comment here:
I hope some of the theists out there can enlighten me on this matter: I was recently loaned a copy of "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel and as I read, I checked the footnotes. What I found was that every single quote from a credible scientific source that I checked in the first three chapters (I gave up after that) was taken out of context and/or a misrepresentation of the source material. Strobel gave quotes from scientists as examples of evolution text books advocating atheism, when the quotes were actually from articles written about atheism, not evolution, and not included in any text book. He edited quotes so they appeared to say the opposite of their original meanings, he read things into analogies that were never intended, and he farmed quotes from other ID books rather than going to the primary sources. Furthermore he interviewed “open-minded scientists” (his term for ones that are open to a possibility of a creator) who all actually come from the Discovery Institute where the main goal is to promote creationism, and who published Strobel’s book. That doesn’t sound open-minded or unbiased to me. Don’t take my word for it, check for yourself.
Over the years, several creationist Christians have loaned me books that argued against evolution and all the books have followed the same pattern. I don’t blame the readers, they have no reason to assume that the authors are intentionally deceptive, but as one who has read the sources that are being quoted, the lies are blatant. Also, if Strobel read the source material he quoted, then he knows that misrepresentation was his intention. So, my question is: Do Christians think that lying is acceptable, as long as it helps them reinforce their religious doctrine? Do the Ten Commandments only apply when truth helps you win an argument?
I ask this partly because atheists like me, are often told that without religion they have no morality, yet I don’t need the threat of eternal damnation to know lying is immoral. So why do the producers of books (and articles and videos and websites) written by Christians, published by Christians and marketed primarily to Christians think this is acceptable and within the framework of good Christianity? By the way, can anyone direct me to an honest creationist book?